LGP To Introduce Game Copy Protection

libredr writes "Phoronix reports that Linux Game Publishing have developed an Internet-based copy protection which will be used in their upcoming commercial game port, such as Sacred: Gold. Any user will be able to install the game, but to launch it he will need to provide a valid key and a password, which are validated against LGP's servers. The key/password combination will allow a user to install the software on different computers. However, an Internet connection will be required even for a single-player game, which might be a hassle for some users. This scheme has enraged some of the beta testers and LGP CEO, Michael Simms, responded he regrets he has to introduce a copy protection scheme, but has to do this since a lot more people download their titles instead of buying them, to the point they even received support requests for pirated version. But will every pirated copy magically transforms into a sale, or will this scheme just annoy legitimate users and be cracked anyway? One really wonders."

Comments

Hassle

[FredFredrickson]

Assuming you need to validate online EVERY time you play- this eliminates playing : in an airplane, on a road trip, when the internet's down, in class (some class rooms have wifi blocked), and at my parents house when visiting for the weekend.

I have a better idea, if I must have this game, I'll just crack it. But then why go through all that trouble to "fix" a game I purchased and put the security of my system at risk by running an unknown program?? Might as well steal the whole thing.

Re:Hassle

[Chyeld]

When I walk into a store, I expect and accept a certain level of 'theft prevention' to be in place.

Perhaps they have security monitors covering the out of the way nooks of the store.

Perhaps they have someone in 'plain clothes' that wanders the store watching for people shoving things into their purse.

Perhaps they have certain items locked in a cabinet or with tags that trigger an alarm when removed from the store.

These things I accept because I realize that people steal and that one of the things a store must do to stay profitable is to cut down on amount of five finger discounts taken.

I realize that these things don't prevent theft 100%, and so does the store. In fact, the store probably also realizes that depending on the 'quality' of the store, a good percent of the shrinkage in their product could be due to their own staff.

But even though these things don't work 100%, I accept them. And do you know why? Because these things rarely ever become an inconvenience to me.

If, on the other hand, a store began requiring pat downs or strip searches every time I entered or left, I would stop patronizing them.

Is what LGP is proposing really a strip search level deal? Because honestly, when you threaten to just steal their games, that's what you are indicating to me. That you consider this an unreasonable measure for them to take that you would rather screw them over as a matter of principle.

Honestly, myself, I think this is a fairly benign manner to approach the issue.

Re:Hassle

[Darkness404]

Lets see... If I go and buy something from a store, do they follow me home? Look at what I am using it for? Try to make sure that I am not in violation of any of the warnings? No, once I have bought it, I can go home and do whatever I want with it, something that this doesn't let you do.

I also have had one of the tags go off that the cashier didn't remove for some reason, they didn't say over the loudspeaker stop thief nor did they handcuff me and call out the police. No. They admitted it was the store's fault, took off the tag and I was on my way. DRM is like whenever a tag goes off you handcuff the person and call the police until they give proof they didn't steal anything.

Re:Hassle

[Darkness404]

Straw man. This is an entirely different situation - you don't have a Duplicomatic 3000 in your basement that can make infinite copies of the stuff you buy at the store for free. If you did, stores may in fact be inclined to follow you home...

No, but I still have a copier in my basement that can copy any book I feel like, yet publishers aren't making me verify my books. I even have a scanner and therefore could put an entire book on Limewire. As for the Duplicomatic 3000, if we had that there would be no need for work now would there be, so no stores, no money, no government. Nothing.

Nor does copy protection. Last I checked I've never had the cops show up, or my computer blare sirens, for failing a copy protection check. All I've seen is a fairly benign error, and in the vast majority of cases customer service has always been accommodating and helpful. Wait, that's exactly like the store experience. Whoops. You also might not know this, but when that alarm at the store goes off, you are automatically presumed to be a thief until proven otherwise - next time try walking away from that alarm and see what happens.

Oh sure, for now it is just a minor inconvenience, but still if this moves beyond games, think of how hard it would be to run a business if you depended on software with this level of copy protection. Or think of the Windows WGA when the servers were down. This is exactly why we need 0 DRM.

Huh?

[Digital Vomit]

...has to do this since a lot more people download their titles instead of buying them...

So, reducing market exposure via pirated copies is somehow magically going to translate into higher sales?

Honestly, who buys a game as a last resort when they can't find a pirated copy of it? Conversely, software piracy has introduced many people to games and game series that have directly led to sales.

It's amazing that some people still think casual piracy is detrimental to the video game market.

the usual trap

[Tom]

Copy protection that inconveniences the honest user will:

[ ] make some of your honest (and now inconvenienced) users walk away
[ ] make pirates come to you so they can pay and have a less comfortable (but legal) copy

Hint: Only one answer is correct.

Re:uh

[AngelofDeath-02]

I think it's more of an issue that support costs a company money. This is normally fine, as it is factored into the cost of the game. If you pirate a game you really have no right to expect a paid employee to assist you in getting the game to run. You're on your own.

This sounds more like a statement of principle than anything else, but maybe I'm wrong.

Re:uh

[FredFredrickson]

That seems like a stupid idea. It's very unlikely I'd steal a game, find it broken, and then go out and buy it after that.

I understand, I shouldn't steal in the first place- but I'd just assume it was horribly coded and that brings my likelyhood of purchase even lower.

*Disclaimer: I personally purchase all games I play- However, I do steal no-cd cracks so I don't have to bother, and I also steal serials some times to play a lan game of command and conquer.. I'm not purchasing two copies to play a few games against a friend in my own house. I'd say the only game that got that right was Sins of a Solar Empire (which I didn't even like), but there was no copy protection, and they even allowed multiple installs. It is a multiplayer game by design, and they accepted that. I didn't like the game too much, but am still happy I gave them my money.

WTF?

[Southpaw018]

But will every pirated copy magically transforms into a sale, or will this scheme just annoy legitimate users and be cracked anyway? One really wonders.

A thief walks into a fine winery and takes a bottle without paying for it. Just walks out the door. Two days later, the thief comes back and asks what food might go well with the wine he stole. The store, shocked and appalled at how brazen thieves are becoming, puts locks on the cabinets and asks that people contact an employee, who is nearby and ready to help at any time, to get wine out of the case.

The author of this summary would respond that the store is so inconveniencing its patrons that it ought to be closed down. That response has nothing to do with software freedom or idealism or the right way to do things or being sensitive when legitimately protecting one's assets. This is utter detachment from reality itself.

The OSS crowd steals from its own. This story and the few comments already ("If they put copy protection on it that annoys me in any way I'll just steal/crack it") makes that very clear. I'm siding with the authors on this one. Linux advocates always seem to complain when games won't work with Linux. Then, if this story is any indication, when they do work with Linux, the same people who complain that games for profit never work properly run out and immediately steal the game. Do you really expect people to develop multimillion dollar games for Linux if that's how things work?

Put your copy protection on the game, man.

Re:Failsafe

[Lisandro]

Makes you wonder - if they are willing to remove checks in case of any problems, why bother annoying your customers in the first place?

Re:Failsafe

[vux984]

This is virtually irrelevant.

Should anything 'happen to LGP' there may not be anyone left to distribute said patches. Are the patches already written, are tested? Or are they basically saying that while they are laying off employees and struggling to cover the rent as they file for bankruptcy they'll direct their efforts to writing patches for all their software?

Normally, for this sort of protection, the source / patches is put into escrow to be released when certain conditions are met. So that a 3rd party can act to release the source/patches when something 'happens' to the vendor.

Arrogance

[brkello]

It is becoming pretty clear from all these DRM articles lately that many Slashdotters are extremely arrogant. I say many because I have to assume that is the case when the majority of the comments that are modded up deal with people saying either: DRM is bad and will cost them more customers than if they left it open or DRM will cause the posting Slashdotter to pirate the game. I say this is arrogant because there is just some sort of assumption that what they are saying is factual without any thing to back it up. You may feel that DRM costs them more customers because you won't by it, but more likely it is the case that they ran the numbers and found that not to be true. Also, it is arrogant to think you are morally ok to pirate the game just because they do something you don't like.

I am fine with the people who buy the game than use a cracked version. But the people who just pirate and justify it are just nuts. I actually don't care if you pirate the game, just don't make up stuff saying that what you are doing is right. If people didn't pirate, there wouldn't be DRM. Yet Slashdot blames the companies for adding DRM and openly admit they will pirate the game. This just further justifies their actions. I just don't understand why some of you are so irrational about this. It is like a religious debate where facts and logic have no room to exist.

Re:No, yes

[The End Of Days]

Does it matter? Does the fact that pirates don't intend to buy the game somehow give them the right to procure it for free?

Re:Failsafe

[Sancho]

It's not good enough, though. Authorization the first time you log in? Maybe good enough. Authorization every time? What if I'm travelling and my hotel doesn't have Internet access. I guess I don't get to play your game. The game that I paid for.

Of course, if I just pirate a cracked copy, I don't have to worry about activation. Once again, companies fail to see the forest for the trees. Cracked versions of their games will get on the market. Once they do, not only are people downloading and installing them despite the intrusive copy protection, they're also driving otherwise legitimate customers to do the same.

Does this mean

[polyp2000]

That piracy on linux is so rife that this is neccesary? If it really is the case that linux users are pirating games for the platform then shame on you. If we want linux to be taken more seriously as a gaming platform then you have to be prepared to put your wallet where your mouth is and support those companies that are putting the effort in.

N.

Re:Want linux games? Vote with your vallet !

[HiThere]

I've bought games from them before. Some were ok, some were lousy. Well, ok, tastes vary.

The games that I bought frequently don't work, though, because they presume something about the OS that was true several versions ago. This implies that any game that does work is fragile, and can be expected to break in the future.

Now they want to add a technology that is long known for increasing the brittleness of games. I'm supposed to cheer at this? My reaction is to consider whether it's really worthwhile buying any of their games. Will the game still work after the SDL upgrade? I can't know ahead of time, because the source is closed. What about after the kernel upgrade? After the security patch?

This does not add benefit to me, it drastically reduces the benefit. Even if they offer support, it means many extra hoops to jump through, and it's not always true that they *have* a decent answer.

It's true, when a game of theirs breaks after this I won't know that it's the copy-protection that caused the break, but that's what I'll likely presume, as copy-protection is noted for causing breakages.